President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
October 01, 2014 12:32 PM UTC

For use in the Gardner rabbit hole, here's more details on what fed personhood bill would do

  • 5 Comments
  • by: Jason Salzman

(Everyone agrees but Cory – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Rep. Cory Gardner (R).
Rep. Cory Gardner (R).

Fox 31 Denver's Eli Stokols repeatedly tried to convince senatorial candidate Cory Gardner last week that there is such a thing as a federal personhood bill, and Gardner is a co-sponsor of it.

In so doing, Stokols cited Factcheck.org, which reported not only that the bill exists but that the Gardner campaign said Gardner signed it in an effort to ban abortion. Stokols also cited co-sponsors of the bill, who say it's personhood legislation.

This didn't dent Gardner, who continued, parrot-like, to say "There is no personhood bill."

Reporters going down this rabbit hole with Gardner in the future might like to know more details on what the Life at Conception Act would do, in addition to banning common forms of birth control, like Plan B and IUDs, if passed.

So I asked Lynn Paltrow, an accomplished attorney and executive director of the National Advocates for Pregnant Women, what she thought the Life at Conception Act would do. She confirmed that the bill is, in fact, a "personhood" bill.

“If it passed, it would be a federal law that makes the 14th Amendment applicable to the unborn,” Paltrow said.

“It arguably would create obligations on the federal government to protect equally the unborn by doing such things as outlawing abortion, even for rape and incest, outlawing in vitro fertilization, outlawing participation of pregnant women in drug trials that might be helpful to them but could create risks for the unborn,” said Paltrow, an attorney. “The only thing it does not permit is arresting women if there’s a death of an unborn child. But there is no prohibition against prosecuting doctors for murder—and there’s no prohibition against prosecuting pregnant women for other crimes.”

Paltrow continued: “For example, even if a woman seeks to maintain her pregnancy, a personhood law could be used to justify prosecuting a pregnant woman for risk of harm. The proposed law would do nothing to protect women from investigation, arrest, and prosecution under all the other mechanisms by which women are being arrested.”

Comments

5 thoughts on “For use in the Gardner rabbit hole, here’s more details on what fed personhood bill would do

  1. If it passed and made a fertilized egg a person entitled to all rights under the Constitution, then wouldn't a fertilized egg become a citizen at conception, so we'd have a generation of anchor fetuses that wouldn't even have to be born here to be citizens?

    1. and begin voting earlier, eligible for adult criminal penalties earlier, eligible for social security earlier

      what about astrology signs?

  2. This is what happens when a greasy snake-oil salesman from a hillbilly congressional district tries to go statewide in a more-or-less blue state.

    Psst! — note to Con Man: Most of us AREN'T ignorant, gullible, regressive rubes and goomers. We can see right through you. So wear clean underwear.
     

  3. The thing is, Cory Gardner's right.  There isn't a "Personhood" Bill – NOW !!!

    But there USED to be one – AND HIS NAME WAS ALL OVER IT !!!

    But on his ads, he tries to forget that fact.  Too bad for him history is like an elephant – IT NEVER FORGETS

    And to think he think he thinks he can "Shake Up" the Senate.  Too bad for him history has him as a Congressman

    HEY CORY – Hate to burst your bubble BUT replacing a career Senator WITH A CAREER CONGRESSMAN is not only NOT only a viable solution but that just won't work.  That's just like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole
     

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

55 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!